Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

More Family Leave Deserved After Long Deployments

As deployed soldiers we work seven days a week for 365-plus days, with only 15 to 18 days' leave taken during the deployment.

The typical non-deployed soldier gets weekends and holidays off, which adds up to more than eight days a month, 96 days a year, if only weekends are counted.

Soldiers sacrifice by not being with their families. Before they deploy they spend as much time as possible taking leave to be with loved ones. That means very little leave remains to reconnect with families when soldiers return.  And yet the Army still charges them leave to be with their families even after they have been away more than a year. Then the Army wonders why there is a retention problem and a high divorce rate.

There should be time provided to soldiers to be with families after deployment and the days should not be counted against their annual leave.

L. AGUILLARD
West of Baghdad
Iraq

Diagnosing PTSD

I was intrigued by your reporting of an alleged undercount by the government in the number of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury casualties from current conflicts in the Middle East.

Until several months ago, these issues were not on my horizon. Then I became acquainted with a 30-year-old ex-Marine who served two tours in Iraq. He was discharged with a PTSD diagnosis. He underwent all sorts of counseling and medication therapies. At one time he tried to commit suicide.

He finally took himself off various medications that he believed had prompted his attempted suicide. Now, medication free, he seems to be adjusting well though he still has moments of sadness over the loss of buddies in the IED incident. 

To cap all of this off, he has told me, the Marine Corps has given him a choice: Take some sort of lump sum or minimal monthly stipend in return for his "release" from being called to duty again.  

What a bunch of crap if the services are trying to minimize their financial long-term exposure while these guys continue to suffer.

JIM YEAMAN
Montgomery, Ala.
 

I was disturbed by the resistance of some to give proper diagnosis and treatment to those who exhibit symptoms of PTSD and other mental problems arising from war.

I am a Vietnam vet who suffers from PTSD. I knew as far back as my in-country time that I was in trouble. I begged for help, then and when I returned to the states. Mostly what I got was the comment that I'd grow out of it. I didn't. It got worse and has affected not only me but my family ever since.

I sincerely believe that if I had gotten some help when I asked for it I would not be in the position I am today. It's too late for me. I am on four different drugs to keep me on an even keel and allow me sleep at night and not have nightmares. I feel betrayed.

GILBERT R.
Fayetteville, N.C.
 

Redux 'Bonus': A Forever Loan

Honey, I shrunk the retirement fund!  I did it without your knowledge, but with encouragement from the government by taking the Career Status Bonus and Redux retirement.

Years ago, a mentor told me, "Words matter." As a retired Marine colonel and certified financial planner, I repeat this sage advice here because the CSB is not a bonus. It is a "loan" against future military retirement but you cannot pay it back.  It is deceitful to call it a bonus.

Articles on the CSB present it as a number-crunching exercise. Not one that I've read mentioned the spouse as a partner in the decision. I contend spousal understanding and participation is vital.

Spouse safeguards are designed into the military's Survivor Benefit Plan. The Department of Defense requires that the services conduct formal counseling on SBP. If the military member's spouse elects out of SBP, he or she must also sign a statement witnessed by a third party.

There are no similar safeguards on the CSB cash-out. In fact, election of the CSB undermines the financial security lockbox of SBP.   It is as if one constructed an elaborate home security system and then published instructions for evading it.

Retirement planning, like ship navigation, involves steering clear of risks. Requiring spousal consent to elect the CSB could help avoid catastrophe later.  It also would underscore the military's commitment to the family in retirement years. Let your spouse be your navigator.

FRANCIS X. BERGMEISTER
USMCR-Ret.
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc.

Priority Group 8 Vets

Reopening the VA medical system again to Priority Group 8 veterans would go a long way to restoring the flagging faith all veterans have not only in the VA health care but in our whole government.

I recall no "means test" when we signed up to serve our country. It is so wrong to later go back on a commitment to help provide health care.

Public money must be spent wisely. In this case, if it's not spent on VA health care, the military will see the number of volunteers dwindle and veterans will continue to feel betrayed.

A simple source of funds to reopen VA health care to Group 8 veterans would be to reduce foreign aid by $1 billion. You would get a much greater return on that money and it would be spent as it should be, on Americans.

JOHN FULWILER
Belton, Texas

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.